Thursday, June 29, 2006

Yahoo news, recently posted an article on comments made by Illinois' Democratic senator Barack Obama regarding his views on separation of church and state. Surprisingly for a democrat, he feels that this wall is too high and the article highlights many rather unappetizing comments he made.

The article points out that Obama has chastized fellow democrats for failing to "acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people". I feel that this is an incorrect statement. I have no doubt that democrats are well aware of how effectively the faith card can be played to garner votes. I feel that many democrats just feel that there are more important things to our country than a belief in a higher power and that they should not have to bow to such ridiculous interests.

His next comment is one I personally agree with:

Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation. Context matters

As I mentioned, I agree strongly with this statement. The first ammendment guarantees religious freedoms which include the expression of such religions. However, there are times when expressing such things is appropriate, and times when it is not.

When someone is expressing their own convictions, there is no problem with it. But when they are acting as a representative for our country, expressing such convictions are out of place. They do not represent only those that share their faith, but must also represent the rapidly growing portion of the population that expresses no religious affiliation.

He claims that "[s]ecularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square." Yet no justification is given as to why our tax dollars should go to politicians who use their office to pronounce, promote, and prosetlyze their faith. Especially given that our constitution forbids such actions.

Obama goes on to claim:

It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase 'under God'

I really wonder if Obama has bothered garnering an opinion from secularists before venturing to make such a statement. I will gladly speak for myself and say that I did feel oppressed when forced to pledge to a nation under a God I did not believe in. As such, I refused to recite the words, and was ostracized as a result. Many other members of SOMA and other atheistic groups have shared similar stories.

Some would say that Obama is a demonstration that faith and the democratic party are not inseperable. I, however, would conclude that he merely demonstrats that when your opponent in the election is caught in a scandal just before the election, anyone can get elected.

1 comment:

Samuel Woodbury
said...

I really wonder if Obama has worried earning an viewpoint from secularists before going to create such a declaration. I will happily talk for myself and say that I did experience oppressed when compelled to commitment to a country under a God I did not believe in. As such, I rejected to repeat the terms, and was ostracized consequently. Many other associates of SOMA and other atheistic categories have distributed identical experiences.